A Metre Matters, but will it improve cyclist safety?

by Matt de Neef, CyclingTips Editor

Last Friday the Queensland Minister for Transport Scott Emerson announced a two-year trial of a minimum passing distance for motorists who are overtaking cyclists: one metre on roads with speed limits up to 60km/h and 1.5m on faster roads. It’s the latest development in the Amy Gillett Foundation’s A Metre Matters campaign, a push to introduce minimum passing distance laws all around Australia. And while the campaign might seem like common sense, there are those who question its effectiveness. Matt de Neef investigates.

In September 2011, musician Richard Pollett was riding along Moggill Road in Kenmore, Brisbane when he was hit from behind by a cement truck and killed. The case attracted headlines around Australia, not least because in May this year the truck driver involved in the incident, Luke Stevens, was found not guilty of “dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death”. Stevens had argued in court that he thought he had enough room to safely overtake Pollett. The jury agreed and Stevens was released without charge.

This decision proved to be a turning point for the Amy Gillett Foundation with the organisation deciding to ramp up its ‘A Metre Matters’ campaign — which was founded in 2009 — to push for a minimum overtaking distance to be introduced as law around Australia, rather than just a recommendation.

The ‘safe passing distance’ law

The Australian road rule #144, which is adopted in most states in the same format, requires drivers to provide cyclists with an adequate amount of room when overtaking. To quote from the Victorian Road Rules:

“

A driver overtaking a vehicle […] must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision with the vehicle or obstructing the path of the vehicle.

There’s a widespread belief among the cycling community that these so-called ‘safe passing distance’ laws do little to protect cyclists and don’t punish drivers that are seemingly in breach of the law. The case of Richard Pollett is one example. Another is the case of Craig Cowled, who was knocked off his bike by a driver who only lost one demerit point for “following too closely”. Here’s the disturbing vision of that incident, captured by Cowled’s helmet cam:

It’s with this broken system in mind that the Amy Gillett Foundation is pushing for a minimum overtaking distance to be pushed into law. I spoke with Marilyn Johnson, the Research Manager at the Amy Gillett Foundation to find out more.

“The outcome that we’re looking for is for cars to stop hitting bikes. We want people not to hit bike riders in their cars when they’re on the road because the reality is that the majority of crashes that lead to bike rider deaths involve a vehicle.”

On a theoretical level the amendment is simple: make it unlawful to overtake a cyclist with a clearance of less than a metre on roads where the speed limit is up to 60km/h, and less than 1.5m when the speed limit is higher than that.

International precedents

While the Amy Gillett Foundation is busy trying to get a minimum passing distance into Australian law, there are many countries around the world in which such legislation already exists. Twenty-three states in the US require drivers to leave at least three feet (roughly 90cm) when passing, Pennsylvanian drivers are required to leave four feet (1.2m) and drivers in Virginia must leave two feet (60cm). Belgium, France, Portugal and the Canadian province of Nova Scotia all have minimum passing distance laws as well.

But according to Garry Brennan from Government & External Relations at Bicycle Network, the fact these international precedents exist doesn’t mean they’ve been shown to work. While Garry acknowledges that the ‘safe passing distance’ law isn’t working, he says Bicycle Network won’t support the push to introduce a minimum passing distance into law because there’s no evidence such a law will work; that is, that it will increase cyclist safety and, ultimately, reduce the number of cyclists injured and killed on the roads.

“We never really had any problems with the Amy Gillett Foundation’s one-metre campaign but suddenly, one day, it metamorphosed and we’d learned it was now a fixed distance law campaign. We looked at the evidence and we found there were no benefits where [a minimum passing distance law] had been introduced — there’d been no benefits for bike safety.”

I put this apparent lack of evidence to Marilyn Johnson who, in addition to her role at AGF, is a cycling safety researcher at Monash University.

“I think a focus on the lack of evidence doesn’t recognise the lack of funded research in injury prevention to begin with. This is a poorly researched space and drilling down further, cycling is itself under-researched in terms of evaluating road safety programs.

The idea that the idea that there’s going to be a body of evidence we can point to is less likely because cycling safety issues are under-researched.”

To Marilyn it’s less about evidence and more about common sense.

“Evaluation or not, giving that extra bit of space, and drivers knowing that it’s not some space or a little bit of space, but it’s a metre […] is really going to help stop crashes, stop bike riders getting killed and stop them being seriously injured.”

Garry Brennan remains unconvinced:

“Giving cyclists more room is definitely better but [Marilyn Johnson] has missed the critical link: there’s no link between a law and giving cyclists more room. Where the law has been introduced and research has been done, the vehicles are not giving cyclists more room.”

Garry believes that a minimum passing distance law won’t only be ineffective, supporting it would actually be ethically dubious for Bicycle Network.

“For Bicycle Network to support a law which we know is not beneficial would be improper for us to do because we want our members and bike riders to know that if we recommend a change then it’s going to provide the benefits that are claimed. In this case it would be improper for us to pretend that a fixed one-metre law would be beneficial for bike riders when we know that it wouldn’t.”

Enforceability and education

One of the criticisms most often levelled at the A Metre Matters campaign is, somewhat ironically, one of the issues that plagues the current legislation: enforceability. How will police be able to determine exactly how much room a motorist has left between them and the cyclist in the absence of any video footage of an incident?

I put this criticism to Marilyn Johnson who pointed me towards a video created by the Austin Police Department in Texas, USA. In essence, drivers in Austin must only pass cyclists when it is safe to do so and when they’re able to give at least three feet of clearance (or six feet for larger vehicles). Police are specifically trained to enforce this law and there are regular blitzes to ensure that drivers are complying. Crucially, Austin police don’t give out tickets to drivers who need to cross double lines in the centre of the road to safely pass a cyclist.

The enforceability of any future law is only one part of the issue. Ideally you stop drivers from passing cyclists too closely in the first place and for that you need driver education.

The Amy Gillett Foundation is proposing a change to how new drivers are tested when going for their driver’s license, as Marilyn Johnson explains.

“At the moment in all states the driver’s license test that people sit is generated from a large test bank. And the test is generated from questions that are randomly selected and may not include anything about cyclists at all. The legitimacy of bike riders on the road and minimum overtaking distance, I would say, should be added to every single driver license test and also be in the driver license training.”

In its report on cyclist safety the Queensland Government’s Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee tabled a 200-page report in Parliament, the result of a five-month inquiry into cycling in Queensland. It was the tabling of this report late last week which prompted Transport Minister Scott Emerson to announce the minimum passing distance trial.

The inquiry’s report contained 68 recommendations including the call for “mandatory inclusion of at least 5% (or 2 questions, whichever is higher) about road rules relating to cycling in the theoretical/written component of driver’s licence testing and mandatory inclusion of interaction with cycling related infrastructure in the practical component of driver’s licence testing.” It remains to be seen whether the Queensland government will adopt this particular recommendation.

But educating new drivers is only one part of the equation: there are millions of drivers around the country who already have a license. Educating existing drivers about the importance of giving cyclists enough room is easy when those drivers are cyclists themselves (or when they have a friend or relative that rides), but for the many drivers who don’t and never will ride a bike on the road, the challenge is considerably more difficult.

I asked Marilyn Johnson what a public driver education campaign would look like, should a minimum passing distance be brought into law.

“One of our calls to action is that we have a higher allocation in the communications budget for messages that are directly related to bike rider safety. Given that 18% of everyone who’s injured on our roads is on a bike, that’s a massive overrepresentation of serious injuries. We need to increase the actual spend when it comes to public education campaigns. That needs to happen and that’s really going to drive what that campaign can look like. But it all really comes down to dollars in the end.”

Eight of the 68 recommendations in the Queensland parliamentary inquiry report specifically address the need for driver education, including recommendation 56:

“The Committee recommends that the Minister for Transport and Main Roads develop proactive, comprehensive and integrated education campaigns to be funded and implemented urgently.”

While Garry Brennan and Marilyn Johnson disagree on much of the strategy behind and the execution of A Metre Matters, they do agree on the cycling community’s biggest weapon when it comes to increasing safety on the roads: getting more cyclists on the road. Here’s Garry’s take.

“There’s plenty of evidence to show that where we get the numbers of bikes up so that drivers are regularly encountering bikes on the road, they expect therefore to see bikes on the road and then they do see bikes on the road. That is the simple most powerful factor we have at the moment, working in our favour.”

The long road to legislation

While the minimum passing distance law is simple in theory, getting it into Australian law is an involved and complex process. In addition to changing the national road rules, the Amy Gillett Foundation needs to approach each of the states individually (Northern Territory and the ACT adopt the national road rules). And while there’s little doubt A Metre Matters enjoys significant support among the cycling community, it will also need support from law enforcement, from businesses and, ultimately, from politicians if it’s to become law. Marilyn Johnson explains:

“I think within different parliaments across Australia there is individual member support but to actually affect the change it’s going to need governments to support that in individual states and territories. That’s going to come down to the powers of persuasion and the pressure they have within their own parliament.”

More than 200 organisations have pledged their support for the campaign, including transport and logistics company Toll Group.

For Garry Brennan though, the Amy Gillett Foundation has adopted the wrong approach and has set itself an impossible challenge.

“The AGF have staked everything on this campaign and have lobbied and promoted it up and down the country, but they never asked the fundamental question: what would success look like? How do they measure the success of the campaign? Is it political support for a new law, or is it changes to trauma rates or road user behaviour?

Their energy and persistence is admirable, but they were asking for the wrong thing — they just didn’t seem to realise that one metre laws have never reduced trauma or improved behaviour.”

For Garry the focus should be on working out why cyclists are getting hit in the first place and finding solutions to that issue.

“Most of these collisions are not due to a simple driver error in calculating the distance from the bike. These collisions are caused by impaired drivers — that is, drivers who are drug- or alcohol-affected, or prescription drug-affected, or have physical impairments such as eyesight or macular degeneration, or simply old age and cognitive impairment. Or they’re due to a range of distracted driving causes — working on the mobile phone, having a dog in the car, talking to kids in the back seat, eating in the car, changing clothes in the car.

So the issue we have to address is […] what are drivers doing in their cars? We have situations where drivers have ploughed into the back of bikes where the passengers have clearly seen the bicycle ahead on the road but the drivers haven’t. So there’s an issue here where drivers appear to be blind to the presence of bikes on roads and that’s a major concern. And that’s where serious investigation needs to be undertaken.”

But for Amy Gillett Foundation the slow and steady grind towards nationwide legislation continues. In addition to the two-year trial announced in Queensland there’s also a members bill currently underway in South Australia, the ACT Inquiry into Vulnerable Road Users starts hearing from witnesses today and other efforts are underway at a state and national level.

“It’s a big process; it’s a process that’s underway in most states. Some states are further ahead than others. It’s just a matter now of moving through the process,” Marilyn Johnson said. “I think eventually we’ll get there.”

So what do you think? Do you support the A Metre Matters campaign? Or would you rather AGF pushed for a more evidence-based approach? We’d love to hear your thoughts below.

Bicycle Network also do not support the Door-Away bike lanes for Glenferrie Rd.

S

BVN have had their own agenda for decades. They essentially represent the “Fitzroy” cyclist and not the greater cycling community. They push for total separation between bikes and cars. They rave about the Copenhagen lanes in Carlton and East Melbourne and lobby for more yet my experience is that these lanes are more dangerous for riders. Cars turning across the lanes cant see if there is traffic coming and must block the lane to safely move out, and Albert St people getting out of cars have to look for a bike. Much safer on the road. But BVN get funding for pushing their model which is total separation.

the majority of close passes we experience on the roads, which colour our perspective, are in #1. they’re low severity as the driver is sober, lucid and ‘just’ trying to make a point – you don’t usually get hit in this circumstance.

the really damaging ones though are (by definition) under #2 – that’s when you actually get hit. drivers rarely deliberately ram cyclists directly from behind – you would think – it’s more likely to be drug-impairment, etc. – as Garry says.

the interesting thing is that in risk mgt, it’s a well known phenomenon that humans tend to focus more on probability/frequency than severity. i.e. we worry more about what we observe/experience more regularly, than the infrequent but more serious incident. in the context of safe passing, this correlates to over-emphasising the garden variety close pass that you get on Beach Rd etc.

having said that, i’m sick of being close-passed so mitigating measures such as a 1m passing rule are worthwhile – if they work. but that’s another question.

James

I have been forced off the road a few times where motorists start to pass when there is not enough clear road ahead, then as they force oncoming traffic off the road, move left and force me off the road as well.

Richard Pollett was basically pinned against a gutter when he was killed in similar circumstances. The cement truck driver tried to squeeze passed and failed – and went unpunished.

The lack of punishment legitimises the crime. It sets a dangerous precedence. How it cannot be “Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle” when you pass an unprotected road user in tonnes of steel and rubber, so close that you run them over, I’ll never know. And a cement truck driver is a professional vehicle operator. Of all people, he shoudl have known better.

“it’s a well known phenomenon that humans tend to focus more on probability/frequency than severity”

Really? Our preoccupation with terrorism these past twelve years would seem to fly in the face of such a claim.

jules

i could respond to that but it would risk leading to a divergent debate :)

i don’t think most people lie awake worrying about terrorism.

Greg

For this to work, there needs to be a driver education campaign AND some strong enforcement from the police. If both occur, the roads will be safer. It’s a good start, but it is just that – a start.

Jono_L

Strict Liability. Bring it on!

jules

this would be a very effective solution. but people often have different takes on precisely what it means. strict liability itself is just a legal principle. it can be applied to cycling in a way that practically serves to protect us.

a different ben

There are precedents from which we can take our initial cues… so like Jono says bring it on!

Edward

Under our current laws, strict liability would require too many changes, the biggest is “Innocent until proven guilty”

The biggest reason this is left alone is the old saying “there but for the grace of god go I.” In other words, people are terrified that if they pass the law then hit a cyclist themselves, they are effectively putting themselves in prison. This is also why juries allow cemete truck drivers to walk free.

jules

there are options for addressing those shortfalls. one is to attach moderate penalties – e.g. extended loss of driver’s license. a strict liability law would be unfair against motorists – step 1 is to accept that. the choice is between a law which is unfair to vulnerable road users (i.e. what we have now – allowing motorists to literally get away with murder) or one which is unfair to motorists (strict liability). it is reasonable to question the assumption that the first option – which we are stuck with – is more just.

what is so outrageous about risking penalising a driver who may not have been 100% at fault for colliding with a cyclist? what is happening now is outrageous.

Sebastian

Strict liability exists under our law already, most traffic offences are strict liability.
If there was a strict liability offence for hitting a cyclist it would:
(a) have the same impact fines have on speeding (which has been great); and
(b) where someone has acted dangerously and also broken the law (the strict liability offence) and killed someone, it would be MUCH easier to convict them for manslaughter than it is now.

Combine a large fine + loss of licence for a year with a scapegoat being put away for manslaughter and i think attitudes would change pretty quick.

Chris Bright

Queensland are proposing a fine of $4,400 and 8 demerit points.

The main benefit of this law will be that there is a clear definition for police and judges to enforce. You may find that the police arent out there measuring gaps, but if a car or truck cuts a cyclist off, then it is clear cut…

Edward

Very true Chris, and it gives us a post incident right of protest. But that fine has a snide and rude effect. It will only be issued via the courts meaning that a lot of cases my be dismissed or dropped in severity. Call me a cynical old bugger, but watch what happens when the first one goes to court, we better be prepared to turn up in numbers to voice our concerns.

a different ben

+1 Yep, it would make most of this sort of discussion moot.

Dermot

Education. The seat belt campaign of decades ago worked, through govt education, time, persistence & (lots$$$)!! Drink & drive your a bloody idiot campaign worked we hope, through time, persistence & (lots$$$). I think it will take marketing money by governments (lots $$$) driver education (lots$$$) time, persistence & (unfortunately riders deaths in the meantime) We have a very bad car centrist related culture on the roads in Australia & it will take time, persistence & lots of government money to re-educate the car driving population. Education, education & more education may work, I hope.

Edward

Dermot, it is not that easy, drink driving and other campaigns are paid out of a fund provided by TAC, MAC and all other state traffic insurance bodies, effectively from your TAC insurance. We bikeriders do not directly pay into that fund and are a very low statistic. Just that alone means that government dollars is not available for such a campaign.

Time to pass the hat around and get the money needed to do our own campaigns.

Dermot

Well Ed I am sure you are right, but TAC is a Govt based insurance. All of what I commented on above was highlighting that we have seen that attitudes can be changed & that I feel that the real answer is based on education and educating the perpetrators. And that this will take a lot of time and money and that the only real money for this sort of campaign could only come from government funds.

Ghost Rider

I hear a lot of people say that the enforceability of these laws difficult, whilst I agree it’s difficult to see how day to day this would be enacted. Would the changes reduce a defendants ability to argue against charges in court? Which is where it would matter most.

My personal opinion is that road rules need to be adopted to better support the Vulnerable vehicle, be it, motorbikes, Scooters, Cyclists and Pedestrians. Perhaps providing the vulnerable vehicle absolute right of way?

We are all crying out for a shift in Culture but nothing we do today will change it over night, to affect culture takes time.

Handing out tickets for not complying with a minimum passing distant, is as good as a speeding ticket. Removing a defendants ability to claim “they never saw the vulnerable vehicle” or “thought they had enough room”, will serve to change the culture.

If a driver knew that could go jail for causing death or injury to a more vulnerable vehicle, I’m pretty sure they’d think twice before giving us less than a ruler length in frustration.

jules

there is already a safe passing distance rule in the road rules. it just doesn’t specify a numeric distance. clearly – if a driver hits a cyclist while overtaking – they are in breach of that rule. i don’t see how specifying the minimum distance at 1 or however many metres will make that clearer.

in serious crashes – the problem is not the prescribed distance, it’s the willingness of a court/jury to find that failure to observe that rule supports a charge of dangerous driving. experience with recent cases suggests they are not. i doubt a 1m rule will fix that, if you look at the ‘justifications’ given for acquitting what to most cyclists appears to be cut-and-dried cases of dangerous driving.

Sean

Actually, there isn’t a safe passing distance in the road rules, it’s only a recommendation and as such, not enforceable. The a metre matters campaign seeks to change this, to give the courts a clear law to be used.

More serious incidents don’t lead to charges of dangerous driving, look at Craig Cowled or Richard Pollett.

If a minimum overtaking distance is put into law, then a collision with a cyclist shows this law has been breached and the motorist would need to show cause as to why.

jules

1. ah no, there most certainly is a rule for passing with a safe distance – ‘..must pass the vehicle at a sufficient distance..’

2. yes they can – in the latter case, the driver was charged with dangerous driving. in the first, it appears Mr Cowled was let down by Chief Wiggum – that wasn’t a problem with the law itself.

3. i agree. but note that the new penalties are a maximum – the infringement value (the amount a police officer may give himself) is a fraction of that – 10-25% or so. that’s not a lot for getting run over.

Sean

Apologies, I meant nothing specific for passing a bicycle in that a “safe” distance is all from the perspective of the motorist, who if they’ve never ridden a bike on the road may think “safe” is merely getting by.

Agree on Craig, poor work. Re Pollett, the driver got off on the premise that he thought he gave enough space. A legislated minimum overtaking distance would mean he’d be charged under that law instead where he’d have needed to show that he did in fact allow 1m (or 1.5m, unsure of the speed limit on that road).

And yes, noted that reco. penalties are a maximum, but presumably if the incident is serious enough the police can escalate as per their powers.

Edward

Jules, I hate to disagree, but it is all in the interpretation of the law.

Victorian rule 144 states:
A driver overtaking a bicycle must pass at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision or obstructing the path of the bicycle; and must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the bicycle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the bicycle to avoid a collision or obstructing the path of the bicycle (Rule 144).

This is a law, but let me pose this to you, a car driving 15cm from your handlebars, captured on a GoPro has not hit you. You lose control and slam into your mates. You are about to get sued for $000’s, but then comes the video of the event. Suddenly your insurance company can go the guy that did not connect, but came so close as to cause the accident. The law states ‘avoid a collision’ but we all ride, we know that it doesn’t take a collision for a car to make you lose control.

The law is needed mostly for when you survive, not when you are dead.

jules

i agree Edward and i also have a camera sometimes. but using a camera is not (yet) the big game – as most cyclists don’t have one. i agree that the new law is useful for those with cameras.

i disagree on your last statement – i believe it’s imperative that drivers are punished for causing serious collisions (with cyclists). those are the cases which are on the news and the message sent – when they are acquitted – is appalling.

Edward

Sorry Jules, that last bit was tongue in cheek… I use my camera either way, cause I wouldn’t know an outcome. Let’s hope that this law is successful – quickly and the other states follow it – quickly.

The reason it is hard to prove if it works overseas (based on my limited research) is because they are waiting for crash data, and if crash data is reduced, then it must be having some effect.

jules

the impact of a given measure on road crash involvement/causation is notoriously difficult to measure, as there are so many confounding factors. i doubt much meaningful data will arise from the 1m trial in Qld – not to say it will or won’t work, just hard to measure.

Edward

This is why statisticians always amuse me. To prove something happens requires a test to be completed many times to confirm the result. If it fails to happen after a change, then the first result is void and the test must be rerun.

So, we know cyclists die from being hot from behind. This has been proven too many times this year alone. So we put in a rule to reduce (stop) that from happening, then we wait for the results. The results (bike riders stop dying) don’t materialise, therefore the initial test was invalid (cyclists didn’t die from behind, it was xeno’s fault). In 5 states of America, they say the facts are inconclusive because they are not seeing the same number of deaths caused by the same manner. This alone acts as the mindset why BN do not and will not support it, because it cant be proven, because it has stopped happening in the states it was happening in.

jules

the problem is that it (thankfully) doesn’t happen frequently enough to measure with sufficient statistical power. aside from that, there are other influencing factors. it’s a classic mistake to put in a measure (1m rule) and then watch what happens with associated incidents (collisions involving overtaking). as everyone is focusing on the impact of the new rule, the natural tendency is to attribute any change in incident rates to the rule. when in fact, it could have been cold weather keeping riders indoors (i made that up, there are so many factors).

note that this is not an argument for or against the rule.

velocite

Your comments are thoughtful and interesting mostly Jules, but you let the side down with 1.

jules

thanks velocite but i was just stating a fact – quoting directly from the rule!

Tim Rowe

And then the judge will slap them with a $230 fine or something insulting to all of us for breaching just that law, claiming them breaking that law isn’t sufficient to charge them with murder, manslaughter, or anything similar. They’ll be back at work on Monday.

Steve G

Surely the best action would be an evidence-based approach? It’s harder to argue against valid, reviewed data.
Another thing is to look at, and embrace, technology as much as possible and implement it (potentially subsidised?) such as the warning systems developed for trucks mentioned in another CT article recently.
As well as a couple of bikes, I own a four wheel drive (yeah, bash me with your wheels now, I know). I know that if you don’t setup your mirrors optimally to reduce the MASSIVE blindspot all these modern, large vehicles have and ensure you’re headchecking appropriately then the potential for an accident is greatly increased. Education may help, depending on what the evidence says, but a whole lot of people are uninterested in that approach. Technology has the potential for a quicker fix and, in my opinion, can aid education.

Evidence-based approach for me with a side serving of technology when available, to be subsidised for transport industry.

MK

I think Garry Brennan has missed the main point. I understand what he is saying and agree to an extent about the law not specifically making a difference. However trying to bring in a culturla change on our roads, needs a stick approach as well as the carrot approach. He should be supporting the approach as it helps achieve the objectives of CNV, which is safer cycling. The law will be very hard to enforce, but so is the wearing of seatbelts, underage drinking, etc etc… Cultural change needs to start somewhere and the Amy Gillet Foundation are trying very hard to do this. They aren;t perfect but no one is, so to see someone else who is the head of a group with simialr objectives, not openly support them is dissapointing. He should have said less in public.

Daniel

MK: I agree. I’m not sure what approach is right but I find it hard to see the 1m law increasing the problem. Brennan’s apparently public comments come across as someone trying to protect his turf and in the process making cycling’s representative organisations appear disorganised and chaotic.

Steve G

If the evidence shows that it’s not effective, then it has the potential to increase the problem of motorists being pissed off with cyclists.
The main problem is, as noted above, it’s pretty damn difficult to police and as such it probably won’t be policed. Unless you’re riding somewhere covered by CCTV footage that is made available to change people retrospectively then the police service have to be in the right place at the right time to do anything. Charging one or two people once a month across the country isn’t going to do anything.

jules

BNV are doing a clever job of working on making cycling mainstream – programs aimed at lifting cycling participation rates. there is little doubt that this is what will have the greatest benefit for cycling safety in the long term. they appear to want to avoid drawing attention to the controversial issues with cycling – e.g. this one, which get people’s blood boiling. whether that last part is smart or a bit too soft is debatable, but they clearly have a strategy.

eatmorelard

What is not clear to me from the two sides of the “will it make a difference” point is whether there is a lack of evidence that it doesn’t make a difference or evidence that it really doesn’t make a difference? There’s a huge gulf between these two positions. Is Bicycle Network positioning itself based on a lack of evidence? It’s a dangerous place to go. If Apple had gone looking for evidence that the consumer needed an iPad or iPhone, they never would have happened. In fact most innovation requires a leap of faith. If there is no data to say that it won’t help, then is it worth the investment on the theory that it will?

As a daily commuter and weekend warrior, there is little more scary than someone who passes with cms to spare – apart from the odd clown who doesn’t feel that they need to give way at a roundabout, that is…

Neil

I think that this is all well and good, and I’m all for a metre being the law, but it seems in talking to people that they don’t know what cyclists are allowed to do under the law.
For example, a lot of people are unaware that it is legal to ride two abreast, or pass on the left. People seem to think that the bikes just ‘shouldn’t be there’. I think the message needs to be stronger – 1m minimum passing distance or __________penalty. The ‘I didn’t see them’ defence being completely unavailable and so on.
For me, a metre matters is a bit of a soft message.

Steel

Good article Matt.

I’m firmly with Garry Brennan here. Sorry but AGF don’t really understand policy making, Bike Network Victoria do. That’s sounds glib but for those that know how policy should be made, it is based on laws actually making a difference and being justified. There is no evidence this one will. As jules astutely points out, if you can’t make a case for a RR144 offence when a cyclist has been hit, then what difference will a 1 m rule make.

The cultural change argument is an interesting one, but it’s not the reason you change a road rule. Cultural change, IMO, will be enacted by cycling becoming normalised and accepted by the community. That is currently happening to some degree in the inner city and surround suburbs. It won’t change due to poorly funded and unenforced education campaigns such as 1 metre matters. Further work is required to increase cycling rates and making it seen as a solution transport rather than a recreational activity.

So then the argument goes – what is the problem with changing the law exactly? The problem with changing a law like this is that it distracts from the work that actually has to be done to improve cycling safety. It also leads to unintended consequences and fights over trivialities like how to enforce something that is inherently unenforceable.

jules

having said all that, i was seriously impressed when i heard about the Qld rule change. for me, the most important thing was official recognition by the Qld Minister and govt of cyclists and their safety. i suspect the deafening silence that we usually get is interpreted by many motorists as implying official, unspoken tolerance of cutting cyclists off. the govt could do a lot more to address the absolute nonsense spouted by many about cycling, e.g. talk back radio.

Edward

Cultural change requires a catalyst. BN have had many opportunities to form cultural change but still refuse and refrain from using them. There have been NO education or social programs put in place, and NO billboards or noise made. I am proud of my involvement with this campaign, and proud of it taking a foothold in Australia. Because until BN stop organising fun rides and start working with its user base, it will not represent the riders that need them most.

BN lost touch two years ago when they did not want demerit points for dooring. they lost touch when they stopped seeking involvement from the cycling community on basic policy. Until BN go back to basics, my membership dollars will go elsewhere, and my fun rides can be paid by other people.

James

I don’t think it’s difficult to make a case for Rule 144, but the punishment does not match the crime when committed against a person on a bicycle by a person driving a motor vehicle.

AGF proposals are for distances specified in law, along with more appropriate punishments that reflect the likely outcome to the vulnerable road user.

How many motorists know that cyclists may ride two abreast? Do you think even half of those read the Vicroads _recommendations_ on safe passing distances? By the way they often get it wrong – obviously not.

Sean

BN get a large chunk of money from the Vic Govt. They’re not going to do anything to make the Govt frown upon them, hence their viewpoint.

Steel

Save that one for the X-files.

Sean

You dill, did you bother to read their very valid comments?

velocite

I don’t know about that, could be, but in my opinion BN is a jealous little outfit. I don’t know anyone in their management so don’t know whom I am insulting, but am unimpressed by their failure to promote Audax and other rides – only interested in their own. And since ‘A metre matters’ is Amy Gillett’s campaign they’re against it on principle and dress up their objection with arguments lacking any sense.

John E

@ Velocite. Audax and AlanP in particular have actively been trying to get councils and vicroads to stop 3Peaks for years; territorial jealousy much?. I live up here (in Bright) and we have to put up with cowboys like him all the time. BN has helped our local club and other community groups more in 3-4 years than Audax has in 20. I see Audax and other ride ads in BN’s mag almost every issue. I don’t see BN rides being promoted by others.
You accurately claim a level of ignorance about BN staff and what they do
@disqus_GXWobg7TAP:disqus suggest you check BN financial reports, the $ received from State Government is miniscule and delivers positives such as Ride to school program and Parkiteer cages at train stations.
BN have spent this entire political term hammering Baillieu and Napthine
There is more to like about BN than not, we are all just frustrated that they aren’t winning on our behalf immediately IMHO.
A metre matters is tokenism gone rampant and could actually make most urban existing bike lanes redundant IE a HUGE step backwards. Careful what you wish for

velocite

I would be interested to know more about how BN has helped your club and community groups – didn’t know they did that.

No idea who AlanP is.

On your main point, I saw BN as a sort of umbrella organization whose aim was to generally support cycling across the State, so expected them to work cooperatively with the more limited organizations.

Accepting paid ads in RideOn is not exactly fulsome support.

‘Bonjour Bright’ must surely be pretty good for Bright?

John E

3peaks is the biggest fundraiser for our club by far. They use us and local businesses, not fly in Melbourne people, to provide services on their event.
I meant ‘Alan Tonkin’, not AlanP.
BN’s aims to get more people riding is fairly blatant IMHO. They don’t claim to act as an ‘umbrella’ from what i can perceive nor should they blindly support anything involving two wheels just for the hell of it. Up our way and most of regional Australia ‘a metre matters’ wont work. Solid white lines will dictate that drivers will either have to break the law to pass a cyclist or drive thru them, or god forbid slow down; AGF haven’t even considered that last option. They come up here and illegally park dumb-arse trailer billboards inflaming drivers up here.
And re Ads, are you also going to pay out on CyclingTips for accepting Audax’s cash for that ad on the right of page?
Audax and our club, amongst most others, post ride updates on BN’s website all the time for free. No other org offers that service as far as I am aware.

Bonjour Bright is nice; for the people running it. Does little if nothing for the locals.
Don’t get me wrong, I want BN to campaign for shoulders on the Alpine Road here, but at least they listen and speak to us.

If I may be so blunt, can I suggest your misplaced expectations of BN might be better served by sitting down with them rather than accusing them of things which you readily admit to not knowing about

velocite

By dint of a little surfing I’ve marginally reduced my level of ignorance and see that I’ve trod in an area of conflicted politics. Sad rather than edifying.

Edward

Quick points,
– that billboard you are on about is not owned by the AGF, it is owned by one of your local clubs.
– RideOn charges to put ads for fun rides in their magazine.
– You have not even bothered to read the rules changed for Qld, including that it is legal to pass ‘safely’ a cyclist by crossing the solid line.
– All bike rider groups post on other sites, but you are a little delusional here, those ads you are talking about are google ads, and therefore not up to the site owners what appears.
– John, you need to do some research mate, BNV are more open to you because they need something from you, try running a BUG or cycling group starting out – they will close you down or cut you off.

D-Man

I doubt whether attempting to work out why cyclists get hit will be as effective as educating drivers about the benefits of keeping an appropriate passing distance. Anecdotal experience is that cyclists get passed too closely not because the driver is distracted, or drug impaired, or evidencing mental retardation (questionable!), but because the driver, in many cases, is a jerk who is not prepared to share the road carriageway and/or does not realise the boundaries of the vehicle they drive and/or the relative vulnerability of cyclists.
I’m all for making it a legislative requirement to leave a set distance when passing a cyclist – for many drivers the absence of a definitive legal requirement promoting rider safety equates to a moral ambivalence as to the legitimacy of cyclists using the road.

velocite

Spot on D-Man. At present drivers are supposed to make up their own mind about how close to pass a cyclist, with not even any guideline. And since most drivers come from a position of seeing any cyclist in front of them as an obstacle, something that shouldn’t be there and a stationary something at that we’re subject to unintentional but very real threats as a matter of course.

The whole lack of evidence and enforcement difficulty is a red herring. The issue is what can be done to have drivers see cyclists as legitimate road users rather than a small step up in significance from wildlife crossing the road? Remember the story recently about the American woman who attempted to pass a cyclist on a crest and then chose to drive into her, killing her, rather than have a head on?

It would be good if BN got out a bit, and saw how it works in Europe – we don’t need to invent anything, just try to catch up.

I got my driving licence 52 years ago, and it’s still in my mind that you can’t park within 3 feet of a fire hydrant. OK, so I assume it’s a metre now. Having a specific bicycle passing distance included in the law will require that new drivers know this and incidentally pick up the implicit point that cyclists are entitled to their share of the road.

Aussie Bazza

I think it is great that people (Governments) are talking about this issue.

My main concern with all of this is that the type of car driver who would pass a cyclist with mere centimetres to spare, is also the type of driver who hates cyclists, and seems to have no connection between ‘cyclist’ and ‘fellow human being with a family waiting for them at home’ (excuse the massive generalisation here).

You will never educate these people.

I also fully support the increased penalties for cyclists running red lights etc that were being discussed here in Qld. We (cyclists) expect to be treated with courtesy on the roads, but this will never happen while people continually ignore road rules. And we all know car drivers are angels and never break the rules…

Cam

… to summate (perhaps a little provocatively) I see:
(a) Amy Gillet Foundation- a positive action based advocacy group responsible for maintaining an ongoing national dialogue including cyclists, motorists, not-for-profit organisations, government, legislators and business on the issues of rider safety that has gained traction, and;
(b) Bicycle Network- outspoken with a negative view of the Amy Gillet Foundation but no policy statements of their own to make.
Which group is adding value in what should be a solutions focused process?
For my part, politics aside: I’d prefer to know that when I’m on my bike trying to avoid being doored that the cars behind me aren’t about to drive over my back wheel and put me under the bumper bar. If 1 metre matters achieves that, or anything close to an improvement on the current roulette wheel I spin when I head out for a ride, it sounds good to me.

Tim Rowe

What outcomes can AGF claim they have successfully achieved so far?

capo

They got a legal trial into play, looking into yours and my safety, that created this whole story

velocite

Agree. BN seem to focus on monuments to themselves, whether this be their events or grand infrastructure.

Like the roulette wheel analogy. I’m conscious as I hear the roar of a heavy vehicle approaching at speed from behind that my fate is in the hands of that driver.

Ian

Matt, a big topic (in all respects) – thanks for putting together a wide-ranging article that covers a lot of ground.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that even after lots of years of regular cycling, vehicles passing too close to me is still a very unnerving experience.

BA

Education of both drivers and cyclists is a necessity. I am a cycling coach and spend lots of time driving Beach Rd in support of my riders. I see dangerous behaviour on both sides. In addition, I would like to see road ‘furniture’ reconsidered. There is a part of Beach Rd (near Beaumaris) where there is a bike lane, one lane for motorised traffic and then islands in the middle of the road. If a cyclist(s) are on the edge of the bike lane, there isn’t enough room for a car to give them 1 metre because the traffic islands are in the way.

Liam Hodgkinson

Then the car (presumable travelling faster/approaching) will have to take their foot off the throttle momentarily and use their judgement, allowing the cyclist to safely navigate through these obstacles first

Edward

I find cars slow there all the time as we take the lane and control the flow of traffic until we pass the two medians.

We have to think of pedestrians crossing also.

Tim Rowe

You only need to go to any major news organisation (print, radio, whatever – anything non-cycling related) to see the general outspoken attitude is a pretty poor reflection on society. Most frequent is this misconstrued idea that cyclists somehow cause traffic congestion, or cause delays far, far more exaggerated than the reality of the situation. What AGF should be focusing on is education campaigns that show that that “got held up for 2 minutes behind a cyclist” was actually more like 12 seconds that you were sitting behind them, at which time you were slowed to 40km/h instead of 60km/h, resulting in a net loss of four seconds total – which was then negated when you caught the next car up ahead whom you couldn’t pass, or traffic lights that were red.

It’s also the attitude that somehow the penalty for delaying you going about your shopping trip has somehow become valid to be the loss of your own life. How this attitude can be seen to be acceptable is beyond me. Perhaps if put in to perspective the vigilante justice these people seem to think they’re entitled to doll out, in a very public way, would be a much more effective method of dealing with the obvious attitude and patience issues Australian drivers have than attempting to get a law changed which is probably only get seen by judges as “could have happened to anyone therefore mustn’t give a harsh sentence” like many other instances where cyclists have been hit or killed.

Quite simply though we need to look at the success rate of the Amy Gillette Foundation, and I think it’s hard to argue that it’s a very good record. Despite the money they’ve had available to them, the recognition the brand carries, and the time they’ve been running, what can they actually, honestly stand up and say they’ve achieved so far? If better recognition and advocacy is something they’re claiming so far, then I would argue against that, given how poorly attitudes to cyclists have declined in the last five to ten years while take-up has increased.

jules

“It’s also the attitude that somehow the penalty for delaying you going about your shopping trip has somehow become valid to be the loss of your own life. How this attitude can be seen to be acceptable is beyond me.”

humans tread a fine line between civility and savagery. i’m not a stereotypical greenie, but i sometimes ask myself – how do we stand by and watch asylum seekers drown in the sea just off our coastline? and the answer is – primarily by blaming them and absolving ourselves of responsibility. sounds a lot like the motorist-cyclist dynamic to me.

Omnirich

I can’t believe Bicycle Network Victoria has such a dangerous and pedantic approach to this issue. Whilst AGF is working with some success, it looks like BNV is just exhibiting sour grapes at their success. I’ve done three peaks twice, but not again if I would be supporting an organisation that is campaigning to undermine safety campaigns for cyclists.

Tim Rowe

People are misrepresenting what they’re saying, BV aren’t saying they’re against it, they’re just saying “if you’re going to fix something, don’t apply duct tape”. The AGF solution is a patch at best, which carries no evidence anything will actually improve – as is the case in other places it has been implemented. All changing this law will do is have motorists jump up and down claiming that they’ve lost something and now they deserve something back, while at the same time not resulting in prosecutions, penalties or enforcement when the law is breached.

On the other hand if peoples attitudes were changed to begin with, noone would even think twice about providing more than a meter.

They don’t seem to see anything wrong with door-in-your-face bike lanes, promote copenhagen bike lanes that I’ve had numerous near misses on while attempting to use, and won’t support the new Door-Away bike lanes that Vicroads are trialling on Glenferrie Rd where James Cross was killed.

Edward

Umm, Tim, they tried all but to lay down in front of the bulldozers to stop this legislation. They didnt say they would accept it, they actively partitioned against it. In fact, there were times I felt BN were actively against any form of change while providing no ideas of their own.

jackspratt2009

Spot on Ed.

John E

That is pure rubbish, Edward
The proposed legislation was quite simply unachievable in the forum that it was being pushed for. the dooring proposals put forward by AGF needed every state to agree. Vic Gov put in place what was available to them; that was BN’s position from what they told my club. Many people jumping up and down wee told this ( i attended the forums and heard VicRoads brief everyone on this) but most present chose to put fingers in their ears and shout ‘bla bla, not listening’. The VicRoad staff were veryclear in stating it was not a political position; road authorities make these changes. Pay attention

Edward

John, don’t tell me I am talking rubbish, you were obviously not at the hearings. I was.
BN actively petitioned (excuse spelling from before) against any sort of penalty against drivers excluding the fine on the bases that police wouldn’t know how to measure it. Look through the damned transcripts mate. Try going to some meetings and you would have seen the lack of due care given to the victims. “unachievable in the forum that it was being pushed for” Don’t even know what that means, if it means face value, then you have to understand the forum was no different to the 1 metre proposal that has seen 8 demerit points. “needed every state to agree” this is not how the road rules and the policing of those rules is managed. Don’t accuse me of not paying attention, you completely rude person. Go and do some research before bothering me again.

Mark

So what are they saying?

“For Garry the focus should be on working out why cyclists are getting hit in the first place and finding solutions to that issue.”

Let me know when they’ve figured it out.

John E

Well said, Tim. Quite succinct.

Push Bike Writer

Terrific article Matt, thank-you.
We have enough experience and evidence now to show that you cannot legislate out stupidity, poor driving skills, or wilfully dangerous driving. Its against the law to have a mobile phone in your hand while driving, to swerve your car at cyclists, or to drive negligently, but spend a significant amount of time riding in traffic and we see all of this. Likewise, each day I ride to work I see other cyclists running red lights, and riding recklessly.
Improvements in this space will require cultural change (amongst drivers and cyclists) sure – but this will take a long time, especially in Australia’s large cities with sprawling outer suburbs, a long history of an established masculine car culture, and successive governments who would rather build bigger and better roads and tollways than significantly improve public transport and cycling infrastructure.
The best spend here is through better road design to make the separation between motor vehicles and bicycles clearer – whether that be through Copenhagen lanes, painted lines and coloured bike lanes, paths, etc. If governments are going to keep making a business out of building and maintaining roads, then the relevant cycling lobby groups must continue to argue for a proportion of that budget (or separate budget lines) for cycling safety related road design and engineering solutions.
Craig Fry

dcaspira

Good response – the shear fact there are ~#144 rules, does a good job of spelling out wasted resources.

I had a woman ‘buzz’ me through a roundabout the other day. I had bright fluro gear on etc. When I chased her down and quizzed her on her actions, she was completely oblivious to any wrong doing at all…. She could even remember passing me it seemed.

I think the only thing to do is avoid dangerous routes as much as possible, and ride like every single vehicle on the road is there to kill you.

geoff.tewierik

Be nice if you could add in a clarification of who Bicycle Network is. From other comments I gather they’re actually Bicycle Network Victoria, the same mob who’ve been flashing around C&D orders for websites with chain link logos that apparently infringe on their logo.

Arfy

I think you’re right, the same mob who try to represent themselves to Government as “supporting Victorian cyclists” when in practical terms they only represent cyclists within a couple of km’s of the city centre. I don’t recall them ever making a difference to on-road cycling in the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne or the Victorian country areas (Western Victoria and Gippsland) where I ride, hence I don’t see any value in a BNV membership. Their logo should include a broken link.

Geoff

While I understand the potential issues with enforcing a minimum passing distance, the introduction of such a law will require an education campaign, which will hopefully generate some discussion and awareness. Firstly, those who are just not aware of the issue (the majority of people probably fit into this category) can be made aware. Once you change the opinions of the majority, you can address the “bloody idiots” – that will take time, but we need to start somewhere.

While enforcement after the fact is not much use (it doesn’t unbreak bones), anyone who hits a cyclist while overtaking would clearly not have been observing the minimum passing distance, and should automatically be guilty of an offence.

Dave L

An interesting topic and good write up, Matt!
As far as I can tell, having a law and keeping people safe are two completely separate things.

Don’t we already have a law where drivers of motor vehicles cannot exceed a blood alcohol reading of 0.05?
Having this law is great (after the fact, when those people go to court), but by that time the damage to the lives of many has been done. And one would think that knowing the consequences of driving whilst intoxicated above this level would scare people from doing so – but it seems alot of people aren’t that scared off and as a result bad things happen. They may not write themselves off but they can easily cause incident to cyclist, pedestrians and othe road users.

In the same vane, having a law that stipulates a minimum passing distance is great, but again doesn’t really keep anyone “safe” – it will mean that they are held more accountable if/when it ever goes to court (but that won’t help those that have received serious injuries or have died as a result, nor will it help their family and friends.

The safety aspect comes down to the individuals driving the cars (and to those cycling) to ensure they are doing the “right thing” when out on the road (in either a car or on a bike). Education and communication on this aspect is key to its success so perhaps the AGF and BN are both on the right page, just working towards different paragraphs?

Liam Hodgkinson

Hi! As an experienced driver & cyclist, I have seen the story from both sides – it is absolutely a point of education to be able to co-habit the roads safely. I see from many of the videos posted above, that there is the narrowest of margins on the footpath side of the cyclist – in those situations it is safer for the cyclist to take the lane rather than give a greater margin for a vehicle to pass within the same lane.

Does this make sense? Whilst it is probably a courteous thing that the cyclist is trying to stay as far left (Australian examples) or far right (North American examples) – if you don’t leave yourself enough space and have to revert to hitting the kerb etc then it’s a shared responsibility.

I ride with helmet cam too, and almost every ride I find that people act dangerously – wanting to share the same lane, share single lane roundabouts, turn across my path because I only need about 1 foot…

The legislation needs to take into account if a cyclist is travelling in a built up area with significant barriers/obstacles such as concrete barriers/low branches that overhang/squared kerbs etc that the cyclist should be able to take a greater margin and ride in the middle rather than on the extreme outer. Drivers behind will have to create a safe opportunity to overtake but thats how things go. Even with slower traffic you must follow with a respectable and appropriate following distance and give way to vehicles in front of you

James

Spot on. Bicycle Network also told me via email that Vehicular Cycling is dead. Clearly it is not, and for good reason.

Manning Thomson

Whilst I am fully supportive of the proposed new passing law, it’s only a small step on the road to safer cycling in Australia.

Anyone who has worked in the H&S or engineering fields should be familiar with the hierarchy of control; basically it sets out a method for controlling hazards. With the introduction of a 1m+ passing law we are still at the bottom of the pyramid (behaviour) which is only one step above a helmet law (personal protective equipment). These are the two LEAST effective methods! We should be starting at the top of the pyramid with proper cycling infrastructure

JBS

Fine lets got straight to the top tier, Elimination. I’m all for banning cars from roads.

Tim Rowe

Roads were originally designed and lobbied for by cyclists anyway. Seems logical to me that they should remain that way.

James

Bicycle Network have such a distorted image of the world in my opinion, because they are so in bed with The RACV, and now Coca Cola.

They also refuse to accept that mandatory helmet legislation negatively affected bicyclist numbers, or the dubious efficacy of bicycle foam hats in general.

They have been basically opposed by a Queensland inquiry that recommended safe passing distance laws and relaxation of bicycle helmet laws.

They don’t make their points of view very public otherwise their members would disown them in droves.

And as for Garry Brennan, I have a string of email correspondence with him that pretty clearly show his personal lack of comprehension and investigative skills.

Now they have one Bridie O’Donnell on the board, who appears to be quite loopy from what I’ve read of hers, who once supported the AGF, but now appears to be towing the company line… One of Bridie’s recent notable Tweets was “me me me me me me me me me me me me (draws breath) me me me me me me me me me me blah blah blah blah blah blah me me me me me me me”.

Robert Merkel

So should I go through your Facebook and Twitter accounts and make sure you’ve never said anything that might seem a bit stupid out of context then?

Play the ball, not the person.

James

The ball is being kicked in the wrong direction by people, and just as politicians are played, so should board members of orgs – particularly when they claim to represent you, me and all other people who ride bicycles. I play The RACV board members too.

jules

dare i mention Mark Textor? (oh no, here we go….) :)

James

Yep, and he’s been played too!

Robert Merkel

As others have noted, there is a lack of systematically collected evidence one way or the other on these issues.

However, for what it’s worth, I’d make two points:

1) I’ve been hit while being overtaken once. It was out on the Mount Dandenong Tourist road, a hilly, narrow two-lane road with no shoulder and heavy vehicular and cyclist traffic. A guy looking to overtake in his SUV clipped me with his wing mirror. Luckily, there was no serious harm done – indeed, the driver was more shaken up than I was and was good enough to stop, make sure I was fine, and apologized profusely afterwards. He was stone cold sober and not speeding. I suspect a minimum legislated passing distance would reduce the risk of this specific incident being repeated.

2) Even if it doesn’t reduce deaths that much, being buzzed by cars is very unpleasant and *feels* dangerous. Improving perceived safety, as much as improving actual safety, will do wonders for cycling levels.

Brad

1. Bicycle Network are a disgrace.
2. The “1 metre” rule to me is not about bringing to justice drivers of vehicles who pass cyclists within 99 centimetres. It is about educating drivers that they need to actually deviate around riders, rather than keeping a straight line past them. If, because of The Amy Gillet Foundation, 1 driver automatically thinks “A metre matters” as they pass me on the road, I’m happy.
3. A culture change will happen. But we, as cyclists must realise there is a pecking order when on the road. Just as Sharks rule the seas, and Lions rule the jungle, drivers of vehicles are a more dominate species than cyclists when it comes to our roads. Just because we may have right of way sometimes, I would rather back down than possibly get bitten or mauled for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time.
Safe cycling everyone.

Liam Hodgkinson

How cool is this? It can be done

velocite

From time to time we all encounter the most extraordinary malevolence from drivers, but I wonder how much that kind of attitude conbributes to the danger that we face? A friend witnessed the upset of the van driver who seriously injured a cyclist out my way a couple of months ago. And the woman who killed Trish Cunningham (you can Google that) in the States recently was clearly a solid citizen.

In the words of a company doctor of my acquaintance, we shareholders need to worry more about director incompetence than fraud.

We need to focus on changing the way ordinary people view cyclists, not curing psychopaths.

JBS

I find BNV’s position pretty hard to fathom. They are arguing for greater education about rider safety, but at the same time arguing against possibly the single greatest tool for that education. The greatest value of a defined passing distance is not in prosecution, its in education. If every kid going for their L plates is taught that they cannot pass a cyclist within 1m, they are being told that cyclists are objects that the law deems must be respected. Combine that with media campaigns to reinforce the message and you (slowly) get a shift in attitudes.

The “safe passing distance” law does not do this. What is a “safe passing distance”? My 1m may be someone else’s 10cm. We may both pass without collision, but one is showing a lot less respect to the cyclist’s safety than the other. The unfortunate fact is everytime a driver passes at 10cm without collision it becomes reinforced in their mind that it is safe and that belief becomes more and more ingrained. Then one day they pass at 5cm and don’t collide with bike. That start’s the thought process of “maybe 5cm is safe”, and so on. This continues until there is a collision and that’s too late!

Tim Rowe

What I don’t understand is how it can be considered a “safe passing distance” if you hit a cyclist. Whether or not you thought it was should be irrelevant, and it’s hard to see how “what you thought was safe” ever got any traction in a court.

jules

they argued that the cyclist may have fallen into the vehicle’s path. if that defence is ever struck out, expect “he may have been hit by a meteorite” next.

Guest

Wow, what a disappointing position from BN. The cycle haters must be having a great laugh at two major cycling advocates having such a public stouch about ‘how to progress’ bike safety – it’s reminiscent of the Republican debate, where the republication couldn’t agree on what style of republic they wanted. What I want are safer roads!

As far as I know the AGF was only a contributor to the recent Qld committee and recommendations, where was BN influence on the recommendations? As a concerned cyclist (with no affiliation to either organisation), I have been very impressed with the effectiveness of the AGF 1m matters campaign, to the point of commenting how much better a job they seem to be doing than the more established organisations.

For the sake of a common outcome – BN should be making a much more positive contribution. Pot shots at the perceived outcome of AGF is pretty poor form.

Vincent

Wow, what a disappointing position from BN. The cycle haters must be having a great laugh at two major cycling advocates having such a public stouch about ‘how to progress’ bike safety – it’s reminiscent of the Republican debate, where the republication couldn’t agree on what style of republic they wanted. What I want are safer roads!

As far as I know the AGF was only a contributor to the recent Qld committee and recommendations, where was BN influence on the recommendations? As a concerned cyclist (with no affiliation to either organisation), I have been very impressed with the effectiveness of the AGF 1m matters campaign, to the point of commenting how much better a job they seem to be doing than the more established organisations.

For the sake of a common outcome – BN should be making a much more positive contribution. Pot shots at the perceived outcome of AGF is pretty poor form.

Ads For Cyclists

A very insightful and well thought out article Matt.

ADS FOR CYCLISTS believes in developing state-funded Campaigns as part of the Victorian Road Safety Program to build greater driver AWARENESS & EDUCATION for CYCLIST SAFETY. ADS FOR CYCLISTS has created over 200 campaigns covering a wide range of CYCLING SAFETY issues to build greater AWARENESS & EDUCATION for on-road Cyclists. ADS FOR CYCLISTS is an independent initiative produced by a MARKETING & COMMUNICATION professional.

Whilst ADS FOR CYCLISTS believes in 1.5M safe passing distance, we greater believe effective AWARENESS and EDUCATION programs will have a greater effect on changing road behaviour. We also believe there are greater messages in road safety then purely a safe passing distance to IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY.

We have received praise from around the world for our work and our work has been used in Cycling Road Safety campaigns in the US.

We acknowledge the TAC have recently dropped Grey Advertising after 24 years, and look forward to a new approach in Victorian road communications and hope cycling becomes a greater part in the program.

The AGF continues to agitate hard against any relaxation of the compulsory helmet laws in Australia. As someone who has ridden in a good number of countries overseas without a helmet, the AGFs position is laughable and credibility destroying. Yet another example of Australia thinking that we are somehow different to the rest of the world. Jingoism at its very best.

Steve G

Wait… why wouldn’t you want a helmet?

Rob

They should be optional, like in almost every other country on the planet.

Steve G

I ride where’s there’s traffic and, like, hard landings. I’ll optionally wear mine.
I had no idea people wanting no helmets was even a thing.

James

I don’t see any reason to wear a foam hair net to ride a few kilometers on quite suburban streets to visit the butcher or green grocer. For over 25 years and 250,000km I’ve never damaged a helmet or my head in a crash.

Steve G

I sometimes ponder the need to wear a seat-belt for short journeys, but I do it anyway. I’d rather have it and not need it. Then again I quite enjoy living and also living with a quality of life.
It’d be a shame if you got to 26 years and 251,000kms, had an accident and suffered an acquired brain injury because you didn’t feel the need for a helmet that day on the quiet suburban street.

Craig

As long as the community can also opt out of paying healthcare/rehabilitation costs of ABI of people not wearing helmets. Would be interesting to know the insurance industry’s take on this issue. I’ve come of and smacked my head on the ground with and without a helmet and I know which I prefer.

Neil

Sorry, helmets save lives. I cannot think of one good reason to get rid of this law.

I feel the focus on a metre is wrong. From a education perspective I think:

NEVER CLOSER THAN A TRUCK.

or something to that effect would have much more impact. Every motorist knows what it’s like when a big truck tailgates, or passes too close. It’s terrifying, and tapping into that fear would have more impact than the focus on a ‘technical’ aspect, a metre.

People are terrible at judging absolute distance in their cars (just watch people reverse park). How far is a metre? Much easier to think, how closely would I be comfortable to a B-Double truck in these circumstances?

And if interpreted literally be very easy for drivers to think that a metre is always sufficient. Which clearly, as the new Qld regulations reflect, it isn’t. And sometimes it’s too much – I’ll happily squeeze past cars stopped at the lights – just waiting to hear the inevitable “Hey, a Metre Matters! you dickhead” one of these days.

Would be an easy television commercial too. Just have a car being ‘terrorised’ by a truck, shown from the perspective of the driver. And then pull back to show a cyclist in front of the car shitting themselves even more.

Henry

As usual Bicycle Network protecting its territory – if they didn’t think of it, it can’t be a good idea. Honestly, Harry and his cronies are worse than the old UCI… its all about them and their grab for power and relevance.

Cam

General driving and riding standards show that adherence with the law is virtually meaningless to a significant proportion of people (I’m sure most of us have been guilty of this at some point).
I suspect the most appropriate method of changing people’s behaviour is to highlight the potential consequences of their actions, similar to TAC advertising of past years. This could as equally be applied to a driver side swiping a cyclist as a cyclist running a red light and hitting a pedestrian.

Notso Swift

One thing is for sure, CT’s going to love you for getting the site Traffic up today Matt

Tim

Interesting discussion…I am all for legislating for a 1 metre and 1.5 on faster roads..yes it does present some difficulties in enforcement…most legislation does have their problems.
What I think this legislation does provide is an expectation on motorists on what is the safe passing distance and that is enforceable by law. Not just some suggestion..
Where a motorist does hit a cyclist, the it’s pretty obvious that they failed to abide by that law and should be charged.
That’s great that Garry wants to understand more around why cyclists are getting hit, but what do we do in the mean time?

Dermot

Have a read of this one, and it would be a good idea for Cycling Tips to follow the outcome of how this
“newly-appointed SA Supreme Court Justice Anne Bampton” fares in the justice system.

The minimum space required by law won’t necessarily make it safer per se, but (one hopes) it should make drivers more aware of their overtaking obligations (of cyclists). BUT in the case of a driver hitting a cyclist, the law should then kick in to ensure that the driver won’t get away with just a smack on the wrist with a wet shoe lace…

neale

I support AGF in it’s “a metre matters” campaign and hope that it will broaden to include major television education campaigns focusing on driver education. I have made numerous contacts by letter and telephone to state government ministers and agencies (numbering about 6 in total) asking for an increase in funding for cycling education and policy development relating to cyclists on our roads. And I do agree with Garry Brennan to a point and hope he has been communicating with AGF to build a strong case for change. It’s not about cudos for whoever has the most succesfull campaign, I would expect all cycling bodies to be working together, it’s not like the “peoples front of Judea” from “Monty Pythons Life of Brian” we should all be focused on the same goal.Well done to Amy Gillett Foundation, thank you. Neale.

sit ubu sit

Can someone point me to where in the Australian Road Rules it states any overtaking while remaining fully or partially in the same lane as the vehicle (including bicycles) being overtaken? The only rules I can see relating to this state the overtaking vehicle must fully move in to the adjacent lane and not return until sufficiently far past the overtaken vehicle.

IMO, “a metre matters” only legitimises illegal overtaking unless someone can show me otherwise. When I asked AGF about this they were unable to show the laws allowing overtaking of bicycles while remaining in the same lane, and mumbled something about “oh that law only applies roads with 1+ lane in the same direction”, nor could they show me where the two types of roads were differentiated or the overtaking laws that applied to both. If it’s not safe to overtake by changing in to the other lane, then quite simply, it’s not safe to overtake. And technically we don’t need “1 metre passing” laws, just enforcement of the current laws.

Allan

I agree with the 1 meter rule, if this was introduced then there are very clear boundary’s. This aside, when driving a vehicle you are obligated to leave enough distance between you and the vehicle in front of you, if you hit it, as the rear vehicle you are legally responsible.

If you get caught driving and talking on a mobile phone (held in your hand) you get a $433 fine in Vic and 4 demerit points, it seems the authorities put greater emphasis on the mobile phone than hitting a cyclist, 1 demerit point according to the article above. If you intend to kill someone then I believe it is called murder, if you kill them unintentionally isn’t it manslaughter? Now I’m not saying all people should be charged with manslaughter but if the potential was put out their then how many people would give a little more room when passing?

I have been hit on the knuckle on the right hand when riding on a quiet duel carriageway the guy didn’t even look in his mirror, i have been abused by “P” platers for being on the road! It’s about time people were held accountable!

Finally for all the drivers (myself included), not all cyclists do the right thing, they run red lights, fail to indicate their intentions when turning etc. If we expect the drivers to do the right thing we need to pull those cyclists up ourselves and tell them its not acceptable.

Mark

I treat the cars in front of me with a great deal of respect and ride defensively. Cars behind you are different. 99.999% of the time it is fine. But a very small percentage of drivers want to make a point.
Especially in Queensland. I want the law on my side and the act of dangerously trying to “squeeze past” made illegal.
.
I see it as part of long-term behavioural change.
Bicycle Network’s opinion is irrelevant.

Ride2Wk

“Garry believes that a minimum passing distance law won’t only be ineffective, supporting it would actually be ethically dubious for Bicycle Network.

“For Bicycle Network to support a law which we know is not beneficial would be improper for us to do because we want our members and bike riders to know that if we recommend a change then it’s going to provide the benefits that are claimed.”
Hey Garry, the exact same could be said about helmet laws but you still insist on dictating to everyone that they have to wear a flimsy bike helmet that does more damage to general cycling & public health than good. The parliamentary committee have recommended dumping helmet laws for adults on city bikes, paths & roads 60kmh or less because the evidence is not strongly in favour of helmets. (Not many casual riders ride on high speed roads anyway. Why the speed restriction since helmets are useless if you get hit by cars doing 80 or 100kmh & it’s almost certain you’d die of other injuries anyway! )
Bike NSW have got it right on this one & BN is in denial. I wonder if the real reason for supporting MHL is because they are scared their insurance might go up a fraction. (Although safety in numbers would probably balance it out if not reduce it.)

Robbert

On roads like in that 1st video you aren’t allowed to cycle in the Netherlands. Usually there are dedicated cyclinglanes or you are forced to take other roads with your bike.
And even if you are allowed, I never ever dare cycling on a 4 lane road. That’s asking for trouble, even in a cycling-friendly country like the Netherlands.

Ian TheMusette Walton

I don’t know if it is law here in Spain, but there are regular road signs reminding cars of a 1.5m passing gap.

Sure that helps, but in my three years living here, I have noticed a tolerance between road users. The odd horn beep to alert rather than castigate a cyclist, patience when there isn’t room to pass – to the point of it almost being frustrating the amount of patience and waiting behind me they allow.

Cyclists sneak the lights here all the time. It’s wrong. But the thing is, the drivers don’t get all Incredible Hulk and go crazy.

So the answer? I am not suggesting one, it is not my place. Merely pointing out that legislation might help and be a good step, but until everyone decides to get along and share with good manners rather than resort to aggression and impatience, it won’t fix it.

NB: It isn’t perfect here, there are still some butters on both sides. But in 35,000km in nearly 3 years, I have had only 1 aggressive interaction with a car.

Sean

@ianthemusettewalton:disqus 1 aggressive interaction with a car in 3 years!!

Earlier in the year I spent a fair bit of time training with a pro triathlete from the netherlands. About 25km into one ride, she pointed out we’d already had more aggressive and dangerous drivers than she had encountered in the last decade or more of training in west europe.
I’m about to head out for 2 and half hours before work, I predict i’ll have between 5 to 7 aggressive interactions or knobs passing way too close for no reason. Oh i’ll also be training on the quietest roads around here, what a joke this place is. I’m so jealous mate!

Sean

Was a pretty uneventful ride :-) only 9 cars passed to close or failed to give way at round-a-bouts in a little over 2.5 hours of training. Its quite eye opening when you actually count the number of tossers out there. I feel sorry for you blokes and ladies who have to train in Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane/Perth.

James

I have it on good authority that France and Italy are similar. The culture is different. People recognise that a bicycle is another road vehicle. They probably ride one themselves. Here in Australia, we have several generations of road users for which the bicycle is no more than a kids toy. It’ll take a lot of breeding and education to change the mindset of Aussie drivers me thinks.

Chris Lucas

As I headed out on the street Monday morning on my way to Brisbane city centre, I sorta ‘felt’ that the drivers that were overtaking me were giving me just a bit more distance. To and from work I didn’t feel like swearing at a motorist…. no proof of course, but I feel that with all the media reporting on 1m matters over the weekend, drivers were just that more careful…. of course I could be dreaming….

Cyril

Nice article Matt, thank for the perspectives and well put together. Thought that Marilyn’s point about evidence is quite true, there isn’t a lot of good evidence to point to and that actually building the body of evidence makes more sense and introducing these laws and consequences makes sense in furthering this alone.

Did AGF put forward any specific end points they want to achieve, I can think of a few such as legitimising cyclists right to be on the road. My understanding is that the laws being introduced in Qld would impact directly on the tragic case of Richard Pollett. The outcome that was had with the BN supported safe passing current laws clearly inadequate as the jury essentially agreed the risk of riding a bike is you might get killed, no reliance on the driver to be responsible.

Marilyn works at Monash in a research capacity, I didn’t read what Garry’s qualifications are?

So what are BNV and Garry doing to understand why cyclists are being hit and finding solutions to them, as he suggests should be the priority?

“plenty of evidence to show that where we get the numbers of bikes up so that drivers are regularly encountering bikes on the road, they expect therefore to see bikes on the road and then they do see bikes on the road.” – would be good to see this evidence, any chance Garry could provide it?

AGF seem capable of having good working relationships with lots of different groups and organisations, unlike the very negative BNV and there response is bizarre to this cause and even the offer to work together. Do they feel threatened? Particularly reading the article ‘a metre matters: really?’ I find BNV not progressing safe cycling in a positive direction. Do BNV support no helmets when riding as the evidence is poor?

James

BN are all for helmets. They tow the company line all the way on that one, regardless of how uncertain the data is. I have it in writing from Garry. Sadly AGF seem to have it in their heads that helmets are for some reason necessary for an activity that is statistically less dangerous than walking.

Craig

The laws that currently exist and those that are proposed are only as effective as their implementation by law enforcement and their interpretation by the judicial system. As it stands the message that goes out from the courts via the media is that if you hit/kill a cyclist you may get a fine and some demerit points which is hardly an attitude changer. Education programs, bike lanes and laws are great but they don’t inspire a change in attitude like the loss of ones liberty. The jailing of motorists whose actions had taken the life of cyclists would send out the message via the media that it was no longer OK to kill cyclists. Surely even if it saves a single life then the temporary loss of liberty of a few individuals is a fair and reasonable cost. Instead the headlines we get are “Angry cyclist pushes elderly woman to her death”. As for Gary Brennan’s proposition that getting more people out on the roads will create more awareness and a safer environment, unfortunately without advocating harsher penalties to encourage a safer environment then it feels like he is using the current generation of cyclists as canon fodder for his ideas. I am currently a BN member but am now in the position where I am seriously questioning my support of the organisation.

James

It is good and healthy to question the motives and actions of any group claiming to represent your interests. BN have opposed several initiatives that I suspect most of the members would have preferred they supported.

mark

Im not sure the 1m campaign will make too much difference, after all, how will one monitor this. Not all cyclists ride with a camera. As in the crap excuse the cement truck driver gave in his defence thinking he left enough room to safely overtake. This excuse you will hear all too often as with the “I didn’t see him” excuse. The truck driver in this case clearly failed road rule #144, which I think is a clear enough statement. It is drivers attitudes towards cyclists to why even rule #144 is ignored, I don’t see the 1m rule being any different unless penalties are raised greatly. This is the biggest change that needs to happen, the penalties for hitting a cyclist, motorist have to be aware the outcome for endagering or causing injury to a cyclist are severe, causing death far worse. Otherwise drivers will just say they gave what they believed was a meter in hope to walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Jamie Kelly

Perhaps to try and flip it on its head, sometimes just a change like this, even if there is already a rule that requires a safe distance be maintained when overtaking, will bring much needed focus on the legal requirement of distance between a vehicle and a bicycle. I like the precedent of a governement showing some positive actions, however powerful, on the side of bicycle safety as it sends a clear message to drivers that its NOT ok to ignore the effect they could have on a cyclist. As some people have mentioned, its cultural change as much as hard controls which needs to happen before the roads become safer. Movements like this are potential catalysts for this change. I’m not the biggest beleiver in the 1m rule being a safety barrier for cyclists, but i like the precedent being set by some political action. Consider the potential flow on effects if this rule was applied intelligently and critically in a high profile case of injury or death to a cyclist, and how that might play out in the minds of drivers. That said, until the media can stop the image of cyclists just being an obstacle on the road, and can turn that image into a human being with family, work etc, then we’ll continue to struggle to win the centre ground on this issue.